Slashdot Mirror
Linux Desktop Distros with Quality Fonts?
occamboy writes "I'm trying to make a case for switching to Linux desktops, and would like to demonstrate how advantageous Linux is. While the advantages of Linux are more obvious for us techies, I'm finding that many non-technical types are immediately negatively biased by the look of Linux desktops. The problem boils down to screen fonts. It seems that, in the distributions that I've demonstrated, the screen fonts are either all aliased, or are aliased in some places and antialiased in others, which I've been told resembles a ransom note with letters cut from different magazines. I can understand where these critics are coming from; after all, they are staring at fonts on a monitor all day long. Are there any distributions that I can demonstrate which provide smooth and consistent screen fonts without requiring a lot of messing around?"
I recently installed SuSE Professional 9.1 and the fonts look really good. I use Firefox on both Windows and Linux and I even forgot which OS I was using the other day when only the browser was open.
I've had people walk up to Mandrake machines, use them for a day, and walk away not realising that it wasn't MS-Windows. If I switched those boxes to XPDE instead of KDE and did a little tweaking, I'm sure it would be easy to fool ten times as many people - if that was my aim.
I was using my laptop (running Mandrake Linux) at a private function last week, and a 10yob I know came up, looked oddly at the screen for a few minutes, then asked "Which Windows are you using?" It took about 15 minutes and much repetition to mostly-convince him that it wasn't running MS-Windows at all, but rather KDE on Linux. This is the level of ignorance we face. This kid knows his own machine inside out, as well as a non-programmer possibly could, but had no clue that anything other than MS-Windows ever existed.
Both Mandrake and SuSE do the font thing well, including different aliasing at different sizes.
I haven't seriously tried other distros for a while but seem to remember some of the Debian-based distros (Gentoo, Knoppix) being happy out of the box nowadays, and probably Lin{spire,dows,insertsuffixhere} but that has other issues you don't want to have to deal with.
If you use the download edition of Mandrake, set it up with the Contribs as a URPMI source, and manually pull down a few things (Flash player, Win32 CoDecs and the like) from the Penguin Liberation Front sites. Using PLF wide throttle is a bit risky, but cherry-picking only extras instead of replacing standard packages as well seems to work well. I've also tacked together a few extras of my own here, but that's a skinny DSL line; please don't melt it down.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
> I am of the opinion that linux is ugly, ...
Try 2.6.9-pre1. It is much prettier.
Ask yourself two questions:
If you're happy with your current software then don't bother. If you're unhappy with your current software then tell us what you dislike and we can tell you if Linux is better or worse.
Also bear in mind that Linux was weak areas (eg, games, off-the-shelf software). If any of those weak areas are relevant to you then don't bother.
If you're simply curious then try one of the many Live CDs (eg, Suse, Knoppix). Minimal fuss and you get a roughly accurate Linux experience.
Probably preaching to the choir on this one, but if you only use crappy fonts, you will not ever get good results.
:-).
There are plenty of good, free TTFs kicking around, starting with the Microsoft ones (yes Rheba, before they realised that competitors could use them too, the Evil Empire released some of the good things they make, for free. It's difficult to make insecure fonts, but I'm sure they tried
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Good looking fonts is one of the goals of Munjoy Linux.
Set your fonts in X. Use freetype. You have to set fonts in many many places. GTK theme. Qt theme. Xdefaults. Application specific font settings. You have to go through all these places to set the font. Some distros like Fedora Core 2 and the newer Mandrakes I know use a similar font consistently by default in all these places. But if you want consistent fonting your only real option is to go through all these places and change the fonts. It's just a fact of life. If you want the power to have different fonts in different places you have to go to all these places to change the font if you want it to be the same in all places.
I reccoment Bitstream Vera Sans. It is very nice and simple.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Its funny, but there's really only one quality AA font for Linux right now: Bitstream Vera. Sure you can buy others, or loot them from your windows partition, but regardless of your disto the only good free one is Bitstream Vera.
Don't leave home without it.
Last time I was in a school lab, the babysitter (she doesn't know squat, so that's all she is, really) chastised me for changing the monitor to 75Hz (the max it would do). Apparently, it "uses less electricity" at lower Hz. Thank goodness it only goes as low as 60!
Grab Mandrake 10, upgrade to the PLF version of freetype2 (extra patented goodness turned on), install the MSFonts and run KDE.
Done.
Oh, and use a CRT for demo's: LCD + NVidia + XFree can take a bit of tweaking to get right.
John.
TrueType font hinting is patented by Apple. To legally use TrueType hinting, you must pay royalties to Apple. This is why fonts look crappy in the free distros. (And no, antialiasing is not a substitute for proper hinting.)
However, I don't know which (if any) pay-ware Linux distros have TrueType font hinting enabled.
You even commented on some of the problems.
In Luxi Sans, the w, c, and d all have some unevenness; the e's crossbar is too high.
Trebuchet has dropouts in its e's, and its w is uneven.
Times isn't antialiased at all. Verdana is too thin for its size (and the V is about to fall apart).
The g in Impact is blocky and has some strange lumps.
Georgia almost looks aliased.
Here's a screenshot comparison between your original and the same fonts rendered by MacOS X. (I have most, but not all of the fonts). IMHO, the righthand (MacOS) side looks superior - more like actual typeset text. So what's up? Does freetype suck that badly? Are you using the non-hinted version of freetype? Is this a screen gamma difference? I used Linux/X11/freetype2 daily for a couple of years, and I never got the fonts to look the way I wanted them to. It's almost like the contrast setting is wrong, not to mention the subpixel precision of the glyph control points is out of whack (what's with the V in Verdana, anyway?).
Of course, the flipside is to say that the freetype-rendered text looks crisper, less blurry - especially Impact. I appreciate that distinction - but for me, the consistency of shape and the evenness of the glyph weighting is more important than the apparent focus.
The _only_ way to get cyrillic letters right is to use MS TrueType fonts. There are very few free fonts but they are either low quality or incomplete (no serbian glyphs in particular). I have fonts.tgz which I untar on every Linux/*BSD computer that I use.